back to article Theresa May gets a smile out of Gary McKinnon at last

Gary McKinnon's mother smiled and cried as she thanked everyone from the Home Secretary to Bob Geldof for saving her hacker son from extradition to the United States. She said that McKinnon had smiled for the first time in years on hearing the judgment today. Janis Sharp, mother of Gary McKinnon speaks at press conference, …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Michael 47
    FAIL

    If Only...

    "It was only thanks to the Human Rights Act that she had the power to stop his extradition. If it wasn't there she would have had to send him over," said Fitzgerald.

    If only we were a sovereign nation capable of making our own decisions....

    1. nichomach
      Thumb Down

      Re: If Only...

      We are. We took our own decision to enter into this woeful treaty. Sovereign nations are expected to abide by their treaty commitments, however, even the ill-advised ones. As it turns out, the HRA was a pretty good idea in this case.

    2. Trevor Marron
      FAIL

      Re: If Only...

      Would this be the same Human Rights Act that the Tories want to get rid of?

      1. Dave 126 Silver badge

        Re: If Only...

        Timing: Now that they have got Abu Hamza out of Britain and into the US, I guess Mrs May felt she could relax a little on McKinnon.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
          Trollface

          @Dave 128 Re: If Only...

          I think you need to be a bit more realistic. The extradition appeals process works. While I may not buy the Asperger's ?sp? Syndrome excuse, it doesn't matter. The British Courts did and did the right thing in their mind.

          You can't fault them for that.

          We look at the Abu Hamza, Assange, and others that lost. Again the British Courts evaluated their arguments and the law and did the right thing.

          For those who feel that sending Assange to Sweden opens him up to a US Extradition, think again and actually have faith in your judicial system.

          The truth is that the UK Government just saved the US taxpayers a bunch of money on the McKinnon trial.

          (IMHO it was a weak case.)

          Lets be honest. If you were the US Government, who would you rather have? Abu Hamza or McKinnon?

  2. sabroni Silver badge

    Human rights act

    People who complain about the human rights act should give up all of their own rights first. Have the courage of your convictions (or stfu...)

    1. EvilGav 1
      Thumb Down

      Re: Human rights act

      Interesting viewpoint. The problem with "rights" are that they exist with or without the law. I certainly had the right not to be persecuted before the HRA came into effect.

      The HRA wasn't the start and isn't the end of your rights, it's just a nice document to point at to use in legal proceedings - vast amounts of prior case law could be used to further the same arguments that are used in HRA cases, but it's just easier to use that one.

      The reason people complain about the HRA is when it's used far beyond it's actually boundaries were meant to be - like many of those cases where incarcerated prisoners use it to make life in prison easier for themselves.

      It's those times when people use the letter of the law rather than the intent of the law, in all cases it tends to annoy people.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Rights , yea right...

        Err, no. In the cold light of day NOBODY has ANY ABSOLUTE RIGHTS. "Rights" are completely made up by our society. Noone is born with any special god given rights. You don't even have a right to life. You don't have a right to work, to not be offended, to be happy....ANYTHING.

        Yea they look good on paper (but don't so many things we have) but when push comes to shove, your're a monkey on a rock, surrounded by other monkeys. You get the rights that those other monkeys afford you.

        It's a nice feel good idea, but ultimately you get the rights your society affords you at any given time... we happen to live in a pretty good time, for most.

        I'm glad Gary got off this, although it's a fucking disgrace it took so long.

        1. Corvax

          Re: Rights , yea right...

          The same could be said about 'money' and 'ownership', both just constructs. That which nature grants us all is hoarded by a few at the expense of many.

        2. PatientOne

          Re: Rights , yea right...

          @AC 14:19

          Incorrect: In the UK, we do have *some* rights. These are set out in the law and have existed for quite a long time, now.

          An example is the right of access. As a land owner, I have the right, as defined and protected by the law, to access my land. It I rent that land out, I confer that right to the person renting the land. When that rental agreement expires, the right resorts back to me.

          Example: We have the right of way along defined routes crossing otherwise private land. The land owner has a duty not to obstruct our use of that route, although we also have a duty not to stray off that route.

          The problem is so many people claim they have rights where they do not. They believe that, when the law does not forbid something, then they have the right to do it, and of cause they do not. Sometimes they believe they have rights even when the law states they do not. This is what belittles what rights we do have.

          Of cause, enforcing those rights is also a pain. Often people ignore a real right for their imaginary one. This causes arguments. These can be sorted through arbitration by a neutral party, or referred to court for arbitration by an appointed judge. This is considered a civil matter rather than a criminal one, and often results in fines, behavior orders and the odd slapped wrist. Rarely does it cause the guilty party to change their mind as to what their 'rights' are, however.

    2. Tom 38 Silver badge

      Re: Human rights act

      The way my old man explained it to me is that in the UK, we have privileges and not rights. As good citizens, we get privilege to do certain things. If we cease being good citizens, those privileges cease as well.

      I think he may have just been trying to get me to mow the lawn tbh, but this spells out how most right of centre people would like things to be.

      1. Psyx
        Holmes

        Re: Human rights act

        "The way my old man explained it to me..."

        The way that I look at it is that in the UK, it's the Right, safety and welfare of society which is viewed as more important than the individual (ie the safety of everyone else is more important than my right to own an uzi).

        We all have a lot of rights, until we start to infringe upon the rights of others; at which time it becomes a matter of their collective rights outweighing individual ones.

        Other examples: Free Speech does not extend to incitement of violence, libel, excessive noise, or acts liable to cause public offence. Right to Gather does not extend to becoming a public nuisance.

        Basically: If you're using your Rights to pi$$ other people off, then they win.

        Remember also that a cornerstone of our policing system is policing by consent.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Human rights act

          > We all have a lot of rights

          As I understand it English law works on the principle that things are legal unless specifically prohibited.

          This means we don't actually have that many rights, but that's OK as we don't have that many restrictions either.

          1. Psyx

            Re: Human rights act

            "As I understand it English law works on the principle that things are legal unless specifically prohibited."

            And another key point is that it is dished out from the point of view of what a reasonable man-in-the-street would call justice and is dependant on circumstance; rather than being an absolute, arbitrated by rotes handed down by the State.

            That's the theory, anyway.

            1. JohnMurray

              Re: Human rights act

              It also works on the principle that so many things are so vaguely illegal that nobody really knows what's illegal until the courts get around to deciding !

      2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: Human rights act

        > in the UK, we have privileges and not rights.

        I'd say that rights are actually the other side of the coin to duties, and that looking at things only as rights is a selfish attitude. For example, one could say that a disabled person has the _right_ to ease of access to a public building. Fair enough, but what that means is that those of us who are fortunate enough not to be disabled have a _duty_ to provide that ease of access.

        JFK put it better at his inaguration: "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.". Might sound twee now, but he was right.

        1. PatientOne

          Re: Human rights act

          "For example, one could say that a disabled person has the _right_ to ease of access to a public building."

          I believe it is more that public buildings have a duty to provide access to disabled people as a right of access would imply the building could never be closed.

          It's also more in keeping with the JFK quote, too :p

      3. Naughtyhorse

        Re: Human rights act

        The way my old man explained it to me is that in the UK, we have privileges and not rights. As good SUBJECTS, we get privilege to do certain things. If we cease being good SUBJECTS, those privileges cease as well.

        I think he may have just been trying to get me to mow the lawn tbh, but this spells out how most right of centre people would like things to be.

        There! fixed it for you, now mow that effing lawn!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Human rights act

          We're all SUBJECT to the law. If you're trying to make some distinction between being SUBJECTS and being CITIZENS, I suggest you recheck what it says in a British passport. The designation "British Subject" hasn't been widely used for 60-odd years, and was largely discontinued about 30 years ago. It didn't mean what you think it did anyway.

    3. Anonymous Coward 101

      Re: Human rights act

      Just because people complain about the Human Rights Act it doesn't follow it's because people don't like human rights. If a new law was created that mandated that poor people be enslaved it wouldn't be called the 'Enslavement of Poor People Act', it would be called the 'Civic Duty and Responsibility Act'.

      And let's face it - the Human Rights Act was invoked by Teresa May to get her out of a bind. She would have used the Witchcraft Act of 1735 if she thought it would work.

      1. Steve the Cynic Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Human rights act

        And of course she knows that the Witchcraft Act of 1735 would not work, seeing as how it was repealed in 1951 by the Fraudulent Mediums Act...

        Red FAIL thingy for you, sorry.

        1. Anonymous Coward 101
          Facepalm

          @Steve the Cynic

          "And of course she knows that the Witchcraft Act of 1735 would not work, seeing as how it was repealed in 1951 by the Fraudulent Mediums Act..."

          Oh my goodness, you're right. My erroneous choice of absurd law from the past has revealed me to be a veritable nincompoop, my lack of legal knowledge becoming my undoing.

          Apologies to anybody inconvenienced by my statement. Please consult with a qualified lawyer for any legal matters you may have, and disregard my statement.

      2. JohnMurray

        Re: Human rights act

        Probably because that act was repealed by the Fraudulent Mediums Act of 1951.

        Otherwise many holders of the office of police constable would have stakes hammered into their lawns in preparation.

  3. Jedit
    Headmaster

    "If only we were a sovereign nation capable of making our own decisions...."

    We are and we can. But when we decide to make a treaty like this one with another nation, however foolish that decision may be we must abide by it. Thankfully there exist checks and balances to ensure we can't be sold completely down the river by those decisions.

    1. Michael 47
      WTF?

      Re: "If only we were a sovereign nation capable of making our own decisions...."

      "Thankfully there exist checks and balances to ensure we can't be sold completely down the river by those decisions"

      Kind of. But I think Theresa May completely dodged the main issue here. Rather than making serious decisions about whether a crime committed on the internet occurs from the client side or the end point, helping to set precedent and clear things up, it feels like they have just kind of looked for a loophole and said "phew, problem solved"

      I think Gary McKinnon Should not be extradited. Not because he has aspergers, but because saying essentially that the crime was committed in america, as opposed to the UK, is a very dangerous precedent to set. They seem to have implicitly said that this is the case, but that because he was a suicide risk he shouldn't be sent over.

      1. David Dawson

        Re: "If only we were a sovereign nation capable of making our own decisions...."

        She did also set out a plan to introduce a 'forum bar' (I think thats the term). Where a judge in an extradition trial will be able to decide that it would be better to prosecute here, and so that the extradition is denied on those grounds. This isn't currently the case. The implication being that this would've applied in the McKinnon case.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "If only we were a sovereign nation capable of making our own decisions...."

        "Rather than making serious decisions about whether a crime committed on the internet occurs from the client side or the end point, helping to set precedent and clear things up, it feels like they have just kind of looked for a loophole and said "phew, problem solved""

        So does this mean that Britons can watch "extreme" porn, conditional on it being *hosted* outside the UK?

        1. Combustable Lemon

          Re: "If only we were a sovereign nation capable of making our own decisions...."

          "So does this mean that Britons can watch "extreme" porn, conditional on it being *hosted* outside the UK?"

          More of this, (not the extreme porn, that would be weird) but it's a valid point.

          If i decide i would quite like to ruin some infrastructure via, i don't know, some kind of (not state sponsored) virus and inflicted it on a country we have reasonable ties too if i am then caught in this country, am i prosecutable? Given the crime is, clearly, committed in their territory and not ours surely they have to demand my extradition? No? It all seems to open up a bit of a grey area as to where you are committing a crime.

          Also in McK's case the whole thing was farce, branded a terrorist in America no doubt and making their country look that pathetic I’m sure you'd find a nice unbiased jury, right?

      3. JohnMurray

        Re: "If only we were a sovereign nation capable of making our own decisions...."

        Ignoring the fact that the treaty is very one sided..

      4. Lars Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: "If only we were a sovereign nation capable of making our own decisions...."

        "saying essentially that the crime was committed in america, as opposed to the UK, is a very dangerous precedent to set"

        It is complicated indeed. How would you like to deal with Iranians fucking around in The Bank of England. Take the case before an Iranian court (to day), perhaps.

        As far as Gary is concerned I am very pleased. Years ago I suggested he was given a UFO t-shirt and let go for the help he gave NASA and the Pentagon to improve their lousy security. He did "no evil" so to say, after all.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "The Americans are NOT happy about it. "

    Didn't one of the US bigwigs yesterday call the decision "laughable"?

    Makes a change for us to get one in the eye of the US and our lovely "special relationaship" and their ever so wonderful foreign policy that seems to boil down to the fact that any country outside the US is basically America's bitch!

    1. Ben Tasker Silver badge

      Re: "The Americans are NOT happy about it. "

      That would be one David Rivkin (I believe the same lawyer who tried to put an end to the so-called ObamaCare, also the guy who wants terror suspects tried in Military courts from what I can make out), who also said

      Under that logic, anybody who claims some kind of physical or mental problem can commit crimes with impunity and get away with it

      Think he's probably missed the bit where she decided that he was at high risk of suicide. We recently extradited someone with Aspergers, but wasn't considered at high risk of suicide, so I suspect he's probably focusing on the wrong section of the decision.

      Based on a quick google, I'd say he's one of those who probably considers himself a 'true patriot' without ever considering whether or not he may actually be wrong in any given instance.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Then let them be unhappy

        While I accept the principle of the law (i.e. the crime was felt in America, giving them certain rights), I do feel the British and US justice systems are fundamentally incompatible. In the UK, justice is based around rehabilitation while the US is more focused on revenge, hence the potential for a 60 (did I read that correctly???) year term on what may be a trumped up charge. I understand the only damage done was considerable effort looking for damage, securing the network and a few bruised egos.

        Now, if the US asks to prosecute to man in the UK (I think they probably should), I wouldn't have an iota of a problem with that.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Joke

        Re: "The Americans are NOT happy about it. "

        [i]Think he's probably missed the bit where she decided that he was at high risk of suicide. [/i]

        On this basis, none of the 911 hijackers would be sent to the US... or certainly not by plane

      3. Peter Murphy
        Unhappy

        A 'true patriot'?

        You're right, Ben. David sounds like one of those guys who is very, very good at ignoring facts that do not fit his preconceived ideas. I exchanged a few tweets with him yesterday, pointing out that it is a human right not to be raped in a US prison (as was likely to happen to McKinnon). Not a peep back.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "The Americans are NOT happy about it. "

      "any country outside the US is basically America's bitch!"

      There are countries inside the US? :-)

      1. Michael Nidd
        Facepalm

        Re: "The Americans are NOT happy about it. "

        > There are countries inside the US?

        Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -- Groucho Marx

      2. John G Imrie Silver badge

        There are countries inside the US?

        50 at the last count. Four are Commonwealths; Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, the rest are states.

      3. Psyx
        Pint

        Re: "The Americans are NOT happy about it. "

        "There are countries inside the US?"

        Puerto Rico, Guam, The Marianas...

        And Texas would probably argue their case, too.

      4. JohnMurray

        Re: "The Americans are NOT happy about it. "

        No, just extensions.....state 51, 52, 53, 54 etc

      5. Naughtyhorse

        Re: "The Americans are NOT happy about it. "

        seems to me there are whole planets inside the US, and you can see Russia from some of em

      6. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "The Americans are NOT happy about it. " AC @11:58

        Yes, they're called Indian reservations. I would compare them to Lesotho/South Africa, but without internationally recognized borders.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is it only me........

    .... who wonders whether Theresa May was going to extradite him, but someone hacked into her speech?

    1. Hieronymus Howerd

      Re: Is it only me........

      Yup.

  6. Richard Ball

    Timing

    Seems like this was waiting until after the guy with the hook had been successfully got rid of.

    1. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: Timing

      Goddam! I've just posted exactly the same comment as you, before I read yours! I feel cheeky now for posting it as a 'reply' above, since you wrote yours first! I owe you some up-votes...

      1. Richard Ball

        Re: Timing

        Great minds and all that. Even got my title too.

  7. Bob Hoskins

    "The Americans are NOT happy about it. "

    I'm fairly certain that this decision was made in close consultation with the US. It was an ongoing pain in the ass for everyone.

    1. MJI Silver badge

      Re: "The Americans are NOT happy about it. "

      So what dwarf are they then?

  8. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

    Asperger's Syndrome

    > Ahsan had the same diagnosis as McKinnon – Asperger's Syndrome

    Asperger's is not binary "sick or well", like all forms of autism it has a range of severity. I know three people who have it in varying degrees, one of whom requires some help in certain social, situations. I can think of at least two other friends who show some of the signs but I'm not medically qualified to say if they are sufferers, if so it is very mild. You certainly can't take a diagnosis of "(s)he has Asperger's" and use it to make a simple yes/no decision on whether they are fit to face a trial.

  9. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    Don't get too excited

    May was primarily protecting herself and her government from the potential consequences of a vengeful and abusive American justice system not so much protecting McKinnon from that. She's entirely happy to ship people off to face that same terrible system when she doesn't personally fear the consequences.

    The McKinnon case was indeed exceptional as May described it; it put her head on the line. May only used the Human Rights Act because she had no other way out of the mess. It must have been particularly galling to have to do that, and she won't want to be put in the same position in future.

    What the proposed changes will do is protect the government and future Home Secretaries by allowing blame for bad consequences to be put on the courts and judges; "nothing to do with us, it wasn't our decision to make, our hands were tied". In the Assange case they've already got that as it will be Sweden if anyone is extraditing to America, not Britain. In the alleged Muslim terrorist cases; "fuck 'em, no one cares how badly mistreated they are, they're terrorists".

    Anyone who thinks the government or May is acting in the interests of the country or its citizens above their own is mistaken.

  10. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Reality check?

    "....The DPP must decide whether to press charges against the hacker in Britain....." McKinnon can still - and most likely will - be tried here in the UK. When he does so it is up to the judge to accept evidence of McKinnon's wrong-doing. Now, call me a cynic, but I wouldn't put it past the US to supply the DPP with information that the US military systems that McKinnon trashed also held or had impact on British secrets, leaving McKinnon open to preosecution under the Official Secrets Act and a lot more than five years in jail.....

    1. Aqua Marina

      Re: Reality check?

      The DPP already has looked at the case previously and decided there was no case to answer as no laws existed (at the time the "offence" took place) to which he could be held accountable. It was only because of new law being used retrospectively that this whole mess occurred.

      1. Tom 38 Silver badge
        FAIL

        @Aqua Marina

        No, that is not what the DPP said. You are paraphrasing, and missing the crux of what they said:

        The CPS has maintained throughout that the appropriate jurisdiction for prosecuting Mr McKinnon is the United States. There is insufficient evidence available in the UK to try Mr McKinnon for the totality of his alleged offending.

        CPS thought that in order to try him fully for everything the US accused him of, he would need to be tried in the US. Now that the jurisdiction has been unanimously stated, they can prosecute whatever they do have evidence for (and certainly will; not extraditing is one thing, but not extraditing and then not prosecuting is something altogether different).

  11. g e
    Holmes

    "We are disappointed by the decision to deny Gary McKinnon's extradition"

    That's OK.

    We've been disappointed by the USA for years.

  12. I Am Spartacus
    Flame

    Extend this ruling to O'Dwyer

    At last, someone has seen sense about McKinnon, but for all the wrong reason. OK, so he has Apergers, but that is not the real issue. The real issue is that he may have committed something that is a crime in the US, but did it from the UK. The words of the US representatives and media have shown he could not have got a fair trail - he would have been guilty the moment his feet hit US soil.

    If the US wants to prosecute him, they should do it in the UK, under UK law. That is where he was when the alleged crime was committed.

    Now lets extend this argument to Richard O'Dwyer. He has index torrent files. Not a problem, you can easily use Google's index to get this information. He just put what was effectively a google search in to a focused web page. He indexed files not held in the US, on a server not held in the US, and offered it to people who did not necessarily come from the US.

    And in doing so upset some media companies in the US. If they have a beef with this then they should take their CIVIL case to the UK courts. They are free to do so. It is arguable that he may have broken no UK law. But in order t test this he should be tried in the UK by a UK court under UK law.

    The US have redefined Extradition. It was always meant to get your citizens back to your country to try them for crimes committed in your country. This redefinition is dangerous. We are seeing now just how dangerous.

    Christopher Tappin knows this only too well, having been caught in a sting operation. The two US people stung both copped to a plea bargain sentence and got under 2 years. Because Tappin opposed extradition he has been faced with dying in a US jail because it looks like he has been tried and sentenced before he even got to the US. And all because this unbalanced extradition law does not permit a UK court to see the evidence.

    Now that Mrs May has shown she has a bigger pair that the Prime Minister and all the UK courts, let her go the whole distance and repeal this unfair and unbalanced act.

    BRITISH JUSTICE FOR BRITISH CITIZENS.

    Flame icon .... well work it out.

    1. Local G
      Go

      In the UK under UK law

      Redefining extradition? Start with this.

      "It is the rarest of rare cases that any country allows its own citizens to be sent to a jail in a foreign land. Countries don’t extradite their own to another... a citizen must be tried in his own country even for a crime committed overseas.

      Asian countries like China and Japan and European states like Germany and France simply forbid the extradition of their citizens to another country."

      1. I Am Spartacus
        Megaphone

        Re: In the UK under UK law

        Quite right.

        "Extradition is the official process whereby one nation or state surrenders a suspected or convicted criminal to another nation or state. Between nation states, extradition is regulated by treaties. Where extradition is compelled by laws, such as among sub-national jurisdictions, the concept may be known more generally as rendition."

        I would add that extradition should ONLY be to the state where the person is a citizen.

        So, if you are in the US (regardless of citizenship) and you transgress US law, you can be prosecuted in the US.

        If you are in the US and you transgress UK law, and are a UK citizen, you can be extradited to the UK, regardless of where the crime was committed.

        But if you are in the UK, are a UK citizen, and you transgress US law, you can not be extradited to the US. You could, conceivably, be rentioned to the US.

  13. Dogsauce
    Big Brother

    Democracy

    It'd be a more democratic world if everyone within reach of America's judicial arm got to vote in the US presedential election. That'd be all of us, yes? No incarceration without representation. Being subject to laws you can't change or challenge is fundamentally unfair.

    1. MJI Silver badge

      Re: Democracy

      Can we send them Boris and vote for him there?

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I am happy about these events

    Mainly because I have been depressed of late and considering suicide, but now I have realised I can hack the USA to cheer myself up. If caught I was looking for erm...sasquatch files.

    *you aint seen me, right ;-)

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: I am happy about these events

      "......If caught I was looking for erm...sasquatch files." You'd be amazed how many sasquatch files are being hidden by Mastercard, Visa, Amercian Express.... Honest! All those creditcard numbers I downloaded from their systems, I was just looking for the one for "Mr Harry Henderson".... By the way, I'm terribly depressed about not finding that card, so depressed I had to order myself a Ferrari and a yatch and three villas in Greece on the other creditcards I happened upon. I'm still verging on suicidal, even though the villas in Greece were dirt cheap. Do I need to mention Assburgers too?

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's a good decision, for Gary and for all of us

    But then there's nothing like an unpopular government to make some cynically popular decisions to ty and boost their ratings.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Theresa May gets a smile out of Gary McKinnon at last..."

    ... pics, or GTFO.

    1. MJI Silver badge

      Re: "Theresa May gets a smile out of Gary McKinnon at last..."

      ... pics, or GTFO.

      You know the way you said that makes this sounds like a porn picture!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Theresa May gets a smile out of Gary McKinnon at last..."

        indeed

        Image google: Theresa May

  17. Stevie Silver badge

    Oh FFS!

    1) Fox News is a right-wing platform for misinformation and hysterical soap-boxing. It, and anyone that speaks on it, do not represent "America" as a whole, I don't care what their job title says.

    2) So, now the threat is over we describe the criminal (sorry, "alleged criminal") as a "sysadmin"? Sorta blows the "I didn't know breaking into those computers I don't own was illegal" defense out of the water, doncha think? I mean, as a sysadmin myself I have to sign all sorts of papers that say I understand about privacy and the law when it comes to where I go and what I look at (and, of course, what I find and I show others). Seems a bit disingenuous to me, now I know that he did system administration for a living once upon a time. And no, I don't think lax security is a let, never have. The lack of acumen does not cancel the crime, even in a state with an Attractive Menace law.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "...British justice is all we ever wanted..."

    So, nothing to worry about there then.

  19. James 100

    "I would add that extradition should ONLY be to the state where the person is a citizen. So, if you are in the US (regardless of citizenship) and you transgress US law, you can be prosecuted in the US."

    So, if a foreign tourist commits a crime here but leaves the country before being arrested for it, you want them to get away with it? That, frankly, disgusts me. Our government should do its best to ensure that everyone faces justice: if you commit a crime in another country, you should be sent there unless you really wouldn't face a proper trial for some reason - wherever your passport was issued. To shelter a guilty person from justice is abhorrent, just as it would be to punish an innocent one.

    I for one do not want my government lifting a finger to help suspects escape a proper trial, whatever borders might be involved. Why on earth should fleeing across a border get you a government's help to escape justice?!

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019